Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/47 references
This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete " ". *If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale". *If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion". *If a consensus has been reached, an administrator will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution". In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the deletion policy before editing this page. Deletion rationale Most of these are coincidence, some of them are just nonsense. The real, provable, phenomenon is described at 47. Also, I hate the number 47 being linked all over MA; you might find something like 456472.93 or 647. Here is some class-A nonsense from the article: * Although it was before the number 47 had any intentional meaning to Star Trek, there were some instances of 47. ... ( followed by a list of known coincidence references) * With the exception of the two episodes without stardates, all TNG Season 7 episodes have a substring 47 in the stardate. ... (right after 46 from season 6) * ...While decoding the BBC's weather report, Janeway writes 74 on the wine label. * ...Another reference is the book Bashir is reading. He was at page 294: take 4 and 9-2 : 7. (or 94 : 2 = 47) * ...At the end, Major Kira says there are 1730 new casualties posted. 17+30=47. * Episode 9 : : A 47 was seen in a string of rapidly changing numbers on the ops display as the Nenebek left the shuttlebay. * ... during the crew's poker game, the numbers 4''' and '''7 appear frequently. * Episode 2: : 47 can be seen on the control panel of the medical scanner Dr. Crusher uses on Barclay. It is the second button down. You can also see from the quick, admitedly not very precise, analysis on the talk page, that 47 is the 43rd most common number sequence, so around 42 non-joke sequences are more common among the pieces of meaningful Star Trek number data here at MA. Oh 40s! --Bp 14:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Anyway, it is rubbish, delete. --Bp 14:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Discussion Keep, but establish better rules for what to accept and what not to. I don't think what are obviously random number strings should be accepted, or cases where one has to do math (i.e. "He was at page 294: take 4 and 9-2 : 7. (or 94 : 2 = 47", which I thought we had already agreed to remove). I don't think that 47 being the 43rd most common number is a reason to delete this. The fact of the matter is that we have production information saying this number is important, and none saying the others are. I don't care if it were the 10,000th most common number, that doesn't make the other numbers more relevant from a production POV. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC) :Of course, there are only 100 2-digit number strings, not 10 thousand. Nearly half of them more common than this one. The point is that you could pick any number and find several "references" to it. This list is 99% speculation because we have no idea if a 4 with a 7 after/near it was intentional or just occured by coincidence. That is the primary reason it should be deleted. The phenomenon/in joke is described at 47, that is enough. --Bp 15:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Then perhaps the criteria should be limited to known references from production sources (like DVD commentary), or instances where it is strictly "47" or "74" and they are not part of a larger number. By the way, the "10,000th" was intentional hyperbole. It was to illustrate the point that I don't care how rare it is, that is irrelevant. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC) ::...which can still be covered on the 47 page. --Alan 23:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC) It would be a pretty damn long section. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC) :Would it? How many can you confirm? --Bp 23:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC) That is a little hard to answer when we have not even agreed upon criteria, now, isn't it? --OuroborosCobra talk 23:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC) :Ok, let's say that we are going with your "Then perhaps the criteria should be limited to known references from production sources (like DVD commentary), or instances where it is strictly '47' or '74' and they are not part of a larger number." Now how many can you confirm? --Bp 02:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Well, I don't have the DVDs to confirm production side, so I am having to exclude any that are in a string that are probables (like Species 8472, I highly suspect it to be a reference, but I don't have a DVD to confirm). If we just go on instances of 74 or 47, I lost count in the 80s on what we currently have collected. I'd guess that under those criteria we have over 100 references. If we exclude 74, we have nearly a hundred I'd guess. Getting kind of long here :) --OuroborosCobra talk 02:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC) :So, of at least 240 refs, "nearly a hundred I'd guess" could possibly be legit because they are distinct, specifically stated forty-sevens, (I don't believe there are that many), and Zero of them are confirmed intentional 47 in-jokes. So, as I said in earlier, the article is 99%, wait... 100% speculation, and the phenomenon is already thoroughly described at 47. Even if we accept your figures, it is more than half coincidence/nonsense. --Bp 03:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC) If even 1/4 is still acceptable, than it is worth keeping its own article at the size that list would be. As I also said, I have no clue and cannot even estimate as to the production conformable directly ones since I do not have either DVDs or production sources like the various books out there. No offense, but neither do you. Or do you, and are you willing to do the work and count before deleting what could be a legit article? --OuroborosCobra talk 03:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Another thing, I do not appreciate you telling me that "you don't think there are that many" when you haven't lifted a finger to do counting. I did. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC) :I did count. Zero. Zero with sources that prove they are intentional references. 240+ unproven refs. At least 19 nonsense refs, the ones I skimmed out and listed above. If you can prove any of them, start a new list with those. Delete this monster pile of rubbish, and start a new list. You can't, you won't. And if you try, you will not even come close to the 100 you claim, or the 35 ("1/4") that you consider acceptable for saving it. --Bp 03:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC) You changed the criteria in how you counted. Don't give me a fucking task and then change it to make the numbers pretty for yourself. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC) :Uhg, I didn't change, I asked how many there would be if we used your criteria, you said near one hundred, I said, I don't believe you, but even if, that is less than half. I wasn't saying that would be the criteria, only asking if we used that criteria how many would there be. That doesn't change that there are zero confirmed. I didn't "give you a task" or "change it to make the numbers pretty." I was asking a question, which lead (as I expected) to the point that if we used even that weak standard which you proposed, the list was mostly nonsense. If we use the stronger, correct, standard of proven references, there are zero. --Bp 04:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC) YOu most certainly DID change the criteria. Here, I'll quote them for you, "Then perhaps the criteria should be limited to known references from production sources (like DVD commentary), or instances where it is strictly "47" or "74" and they are not part of a larger number." Notice the OR. That means that both direct confirmable from production sources (allowing for Species 8'47'2 if confirmable), as well as any and all instances of 47 or 74 on there own. Instead, you only counted the confirmable from production sources. So yes, you changed the god damn criteria. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC) :That was you! I was quoting you! You said we had not agreed on a a criteria so you couldn't guess how many legit items there would be. I the asked, well how many would there be if we used the criteria you proposed! By quoting that exact line from your comment. You then answered with "nearly a hundred", and deja vu... I said, I don't believe you, but even if,'that is less than half'. I wasn't saying that '''would be' the criteria, only asking if we used that criteria how many would there be. I was asking a question, which lead (as I expected) to the point that if we used even that weak standard which you proposed, the list was mostly nonsense. Then continued, if we use the stronger, correct, standard of proven references, there are zero.'' Please try and stay with the conversation, you forget your own lines. --Bp 04:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Then we still run into the problem of you calling me a liar when I come to you wiht a number, and I don't fucking appreciate that. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC) :I accept your apology. So now that we all agree that we have no proof that any of the "47 references" are intentional, perhaps someone else has some comment or opinion about why such an article full of speculation/coincidence should be kept? --Bp 08:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC) :::ACH! Again vit the cursing! Vat is it vit the cursing?! Vy, back in my day, ve never cursed for fear that our mother vould vash our mouth out vit soap and our vather, God rest his soul, vould make us eat chewing 'bacco until our teeth vell out! I don't vant to hear any more v***ing cursing from either of you, you little vipper-snappers! --From Andoria with Love 09:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC) :Um, I'm a good boy, and I didn't curse, that was Cobra dropping the f-bomb all over. But anyway, get on topic Shran. What do you think about the crapping holy hell god damn topic?! --Bp 09:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC) :: Out of curiosity, how many explicit references are there to just the number 47? That should really be the basis of this discussion...it is "47 references" afterall, not "50'47'6.2 references" -- meaning if you take away all these convoluted math problem occurrences, or where instances where it is hidden inside other numbers, what do you have left? --Alan 09:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC) :::Well, that is kindof the problem, what is a "47 reference"? I would say it is a specific intentionally included number 47. Near the most permissive end of the spectrum you might allow any 4 next to a 7. Which would include the 47xx.x stardates, that logically are most likely conincidence based on the system of numbering stardates. And then in the middle somewhere, there is the 47-alone rule that you mention, but that includes things like the time 13:47, is that alone? And what about "The '46, no '47" wine thing, is that alone, and is it not just one-off 46? Any rule that doesn't require a source that confirms that it is intentionally a result of the 47 phenomenon, and not just a coincidence, is really just too weak. IMO. That is the basis of the Pfd. --Bp 09:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC) :Merge with 47, but only the references who explicit show 47 and not an odd line of numbers like the stardates.– Tom 09:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC) :::expansion/edit conflict: About the number of just-47s, Cobra counted "near 100". The point in the response was that, just 47 is not a good rule, so it doesn't matter. This was an edit conflict with ThomasHL, but I think it fits as a response to you/him as well. --Bp 09:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Ok, I did an admittedly subjective tally of the 47 references listed. Off the top, I eliminated everything on the list before season 4 of TNG, which is when Menosky says he started deliberately including "47" in episodes. Of the remainder, there were 27 entries that just had an episode listed with no explanation of the 47 reference. There were 8 that were specifically "74" references, 125 that I felt were "possible" references, 68 that I felt were a real stretch (involving math, embedded in a long string of numbers, dates/stardates, etc.) and another 30 that I felt were questionable (not as obviously a stretch as some, but not as clearly a possibility as others). When I say "possible", I'm including all clear references to 47, but not necessarily spelled out by production staff as "yes, I included that 47 on purpose". -- Renegade54 14:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC) ---- Coming kind of late into the discussion (and surely not wanting to get involved in that pissing match) - but what about the good old sport of actually copy-editing an article instead of deleting it outright and then create something in its place? Remove those references that are outright stupid. Mark uncited references with and give it some time. After that time, move those uncited references to the talk page. If after all that, there's not enough data to warrant its own article, merge with 47 and be done with it... -- Cid Highwind 09:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC) :Right.~ At the beginning I thought I might add to each item, but then you would be angry about proving a point by disrupting MA. The point, Cid, is that if I edited the page, I would remove all of them. None of them are proven intentional. Us deciding which is a real 47, by considering if it is "alone" or whatever, is just silliness. All opinion that we could argue about forever. The only real standard is if it can be proven intentional. So, delete and be done with it. Anyway, this is my last post on the matter. -- 16:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC) ---- I particularly enjoy how this is all being fueled by one member. Perhaps if more people wanted it to be deleted, then maybe it's really worth discussing. - Cygnis 06:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC) ---- I think, in short... keep, but with stricter rules. Anything involving Additon or Subtraction or whatnot does not count... perhaps a few exceptions. For example 74656... warp 7 is 656 times the speed of light... so 747... i think that counts So it has to be somthing that directly has 47 in it... and 74 does not count. ---- Ok, I "unresolved" this (it's still unresolved, anyway) because, admittedly, when I resolved the issue the first time I only skimmed through the above discussion. So, it's back now. And now that it's back (and now that I've read it properly), I think I'll get involved in this discussion. Do I want to see this page deleted? Half yes, half no. Several of them (those listed by bp above) are ridiculous, and those which occurred before TNG Season 4 shouldn't even be there. I personally think this would be a fun, interesting page to keep if it weren't for the excessive crap mentioned above. I like Cid's idea of copy-editing the page and waiting for a little while. The thing is, bp is right... how do we know which ones are intentional references and which others are coincidental? We could specify in the page that some are likely coincidental... but that would be akin to allowing speculation, which would be against our policy. So even though Cid's idea isn't a bad one, I don't see how it would help in the long-run, since speculation is still speculation, and info on the phenomenon can be found at 47. At the same time, I don't think the page should be outright deleted; I think it should be merged with 47 and the resulting redirect deleted. This way, the "references" can still be found in the page's history. Is this a good compromise? --From Andoria with Love 15:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Admin resolution This discussion has been up for far too long, so I'm taking the initiative and implementing my compromise. "47 references" contains a buttload of speculation as to which 47 references are intentional and which are unintentional. The phenomenon is described at 47 and a whole list containing every single appearance of a "47" or "74" seems a bit much. That said, the page should not be merely deleted as people have contributed large amounts of information to it. So, I will merge this page's history with that of 47 and delete the resulting redirect. --From Andoria with Love 18:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)